Page 1 of 40

DOE Review Release 07/26/2018

Summary Site Profile for the 

Pacific Proving Ground

ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Rev. 02

Effective Date: 07/23/2018

Supersedes: Revision 01

Subject Expert(s): Eugene M. Rollins, Kathy Boothe

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Eugene M. Rollins, Document Owner

Approval Date: 07/12/2018

Concurrence: Signature on File

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence Date: 07/12/2018

Concurrence: Fred L. Duncan Signature on File for

Scott R. Siebert, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 07/12/2018

Concurrence: Danita Anderson Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 07/12/2018

Approval: Signature on File

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Approval Date: 07/23/2018

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION. 

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 2 of 40

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

08/30/2006 00 New document to describe the Pacific Proving Ground and other 

oceanic test locations to enable the preparation of dose 

reconstructions. First approved issue of Revision 00. Incorporates 

internal and NIOSH formal review comments. There is no change to 

the assigned dose and no PER is required. Training required: As 

determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by Lori J. Arent.

07/11/2016 01 Revision initiated to update occupational medical and external dose 

information. Added excerpts to Section 1.3 from EEOICPA Bulletin 

No. 06-15 and EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05 clarifying that 83 days of 

continuous presence on land or ships would be equivalent to the 

250-workday requirement for eligibility for compensation. Removed 

reference in Section 3.0 to ORAUT-PROC-0061 and added 

evaluation requirements under ORAUT-OTIB-0079. Provided 

additional information about the assignment of X-ray procedures 

based on various DOE responses. Revised Section 6.0 requirement 

to assign 95th-percentile doses from Attachment A for unmonitored 

workers and added requirement to Attachment A for comparison and 

assignment of the larger of missed plus recorded dose to the 

95th-percentile doses. Removed requirement to assume beta-togamma ratios from the Nevada Test Site profile. Added Section 6.1 

to provide beta-to-gamma ratios as a function of time after detonation 

and distance from source plane, which is favorable to claimants. 

Added Section 6.2 to provide methods for reconstructing dose from 

fallout from the GREENHOUSE operation for workers on 

contaminated islands and ships. Added Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 to 

provide methods for determining penetrating and nonpenetrating 

dose. Added Section 6.3.3 for determining penetrating and 

nonpenetrating dose from fallout. Revised Section 7.0 to include all 

dose reconstruction methods. Incorporates formal internal and 

NIOSH review comments. Constitutes a total rewrite of the 

document. Training required: As determined by the Objective 

Manager. Initiated by Eugene M. Rollins.

07/23/2018 02 Revision initiated to revise 95th-percentile doses. Revised Section 

6.3.1 to allow for prorating 95th-percentile doses. Added clarifying 

text to Section 7.0 on how recorded dose should be compared with 

95th-percentile dose. Revised entire Attachment A. Incorporates 

formal internal review comments. No changes were needed as a 

result of NIOSH formal review. Constitutes a total rewrite of the 

document. Training required: As determined by the Objective 

Manager. Initiated by Eugene M. Rollins.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 3 of 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 5

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 8

1.2 Scope........................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Special Exposure Cohort.............................................................................................. 8

2.0 Site Description........................................................................................................................ 9

3.0 Occupational Medical Dose.................................................................................................... 13

4.0 Occupational Environmental Dose ......................................................................................... 14

5.0 Occupational Internal Dose.................................................................................................... 14

6.0 Occupational External Dose................................................................................................... 15

6.1 Unmonitored Skin Dose Beta-to-Gamma Ratios......................................................... 19

6.2 Unmonitored Skin Dose from Fallout .......................................................................... 21

6.3 Instructions to Dose Reconstructors ........................................................................... 26

6.3.1 Penetrating Dose Determination .................................................................. 26

6.3.2 Nonpenetrating Dose Determination ............................................................ 26

6.3.3 Penetrating and Nonpenetrating Doses from Fallout .................................... 26

7.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 27

8.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 27

References ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 31

ATTACHMENT A COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE.................................................................... 33
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 4 of 40

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2-1 PPG tests...............................................................................................................................10

6-1 External dosimetry using gamma dosimeters, 1946 to 1962 .................................................. 16

6-2 Beta-to-gamma dose ratios for bare skin exposures to mixed fission products at PPG

test sites at various distances from the source plane ............................................................. 19

6-3 Maximum beta-to-gamma ratios between 12 hours and 2 months after detonation at

various distances above the source plane.............................................................................. 20

6-4 Anatomical distances to source plane and corresponding beta-to-gamma ratios ................... 20

6-5 Efficiency beta-to-gamma ratios for fresh and weathered fallout ............................................ 21

6-6 Operation Greenhouse fallout exposures for personnel aboard ships for the entire test

period.....................................................................................................................................26

A-1 Summary of external coworker dose analysis using ORAUT-RPRT-0071 methodology

vs. Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) data ............................................................................... 35

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

6-1 Cumulative dose for personnel on Parry Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout............ 23

6-2 Cumulative dose for personnel on Enewetak Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout..... 24

6-3 Cumulative dose for personnel on Japtan Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout.......... 25

A-1 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Crossroads ................................................... 35

A-2 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Sandstone..................................................... 36

A-3 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Ivy, 1952 to 1953 .......................................... 36

A-4 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Castle ........................................................... 37

A-5 External coworker dose analysis, 1955 .................................................................................. 37

A-6 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Redwing........................................................ 38

A-7 External coworker dose analysis, 1957 .................................................................................. 38

A-8 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Hardtack-I ..................................................... 39

A-9 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Greenhouse .................................................. 39

A-10 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Dominic-I ....................................................... 40
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 5 of 40

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AWE atomic weapons employer

CE Claims Examiner

cm centimeter

d day

DCF dose conversion factor

DEEOIC Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation

DNA Defense Nuclear Agency

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

EG&G Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier

ft foot

GSD geometric standard deviation

H&N Holmes & Narver

H*(10) ambient dose equivalent at 10 millimeters depth in tissue

hr hour

in. inch

keV kiloelectron-volt (1,000 electron-volts)

km kilometer

kt the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

mo month

mR milliroentgen

mrem millirem

Mt the explosive force of 1 million tons of TNT

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NTS Nevada Test Site

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

PER program evaluation report

PPG Pacific Proving Ground

R roentgen

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SNL Sandia National Laboratory

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 6 of 40

t ton

TBD technical basis document

TNT trinitrotoluene

U.S.C. United States Code

wk week

yd yard

yr year

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 7 of 40

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Technical basis documents and site profile documents are not official determinations made by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working 

documents that provide historical background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of 

dose reconstructions at particular Department of Energy (DOE) or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) 

facilities or categories of DOE or AWE facilities. They will be revised in the event additional relevant 

information is obtained about the affected DOE or AWE facility(ies). These documents may be used 

to assist NIOSH staff in the evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petitions and the completion 

of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

In this document the word “facility” is used to refer to an area, building, or group of buildings that 

served a specific purpose at a DOE or AWE facility. It does not mean nor should it be equated to an 

“AWE facility” or a “DOE facility.” The terms AWE and DOE facility are defined in sections 7384l(5) 

and (12) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA), respectively. An AWE facility means “a facility, owned by an atomic weapons employer, 

that is or was used to process or produce, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation 

and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining or milling.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384l(5). On the other hand, a DOE facility is defined as “any building, structure, or premise,

including the grounds upon which such building, structure, or premise is located ... in which

operations are, or have been, conducted by, or on behalf of, the [DOE] (except for buildings,

structures, premises, grounds, or operations ... pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program);”

and with regard to which DOE has or had a proprietary interest, or “entered into a contract with an

entity to provide management and operation, management and integration, environmental

remediation services, construction, or maintenance services.” 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12). The Department

of Energy (DOE) determines whether a site meets the statutory definition of an AWE facility and the

Department of Labor (DOL) determines if a site is a DOE facility and, if it is, designates it as such.

Accordingly, a Part B claim for benefits must be based on an energy employee’s eligible employment

and occupational radiation exposure at a DOE or AWE facility during the facility’s designated time 

period and location (i.e., covered employee). After DOL determines that a claim meets the eligibility 

requirements under EEOICPA, DOL transmits the claim to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction. 

EEOICPA provides, among other things, guidance on eligible employment and the types of radiation 

exposure to be included in an individual dose reconstruction. Under EEOICPA, eligible employment 

at a DOE facility includes individuals who are or were employed by DOE and its predecessor 

agencies, as well as their contractors and subcontractors at the facility. Unlike the abovementioned 

statutory provisions on DOE facility definitions that contain specific descriptions or exclusions on 

facility designation, the statutory provision governing types of exposure to be included in dose 

reconstructions for DOE covered employees only requires that such exposures be incurred in the 

performance of duty. As such, NIOSH broadly construes radiation exposures incurred in the 

performance of duty to include all radiation exposures received as a condition of employment at 

covered DOE facilities in its dose reconstructions for covered employees. For covered employees at 

DOE facilities, individual dose reconstructions may also include radiation exposures related to the 

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program at DOE facilities, if applicable. No efforts are made to determine 

the eligibility of any fraction of total measured exposure for inclusion in dose reconstruction.

NIOSH does not consider the following types of exposure as those incurred in the performance of 

duty as a condition of employment at a DOE facility. Therefore these exposures are not included in 

dose reconstructions for covered employees (NIOSH 2010):

• Background radiation, including radiation from naturally occurring radon present in

conventional structures

• Radiation from X-rays received in the diagnosis of injuries or illnesses or for therapeutic

reasons
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 8 of 40

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for dose reconstruction of non-SEC cancers and 

those presumptive cancer claims that have less than 250 days of employment for EEOICPA claimants 

who participated in Pacific Proving Ground (PPG) operations.

1.2 SCOPE

This site profile consists of the following sections: Introduction, Site Description, Occupational 

Medical Dose, Occupational Environmental Dose, Occupational Internal Dose, Occupational External 

Dose, and Summary. Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to 

identify the source, justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in 

Section 8.0.

1.3 SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has designated the following 

class of PPG employees as an addition to the SEC (Leavitt 2006):

Department of Energy (DOE) employees or DOE contractor or subcontractor employees 

who worked at the Pacific Proving Grounds (PPG) from 1946 through 1962 for a number 

of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, either solely under this employment or 

in combination with work days within the parameters (excluding aggregate work day 

requirements) established for other classes of employees included in the SEC, and who 

were monitored or should have been monitored.

NIOSH established in its SEC evaluation report (NIOSH 2005) that it lacks access to sufficient 

information to estimate either the maximum radiation dose incurred by any member of the class being 

evaluated, or to estimate such radiation doses more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. The 

sum of information from the available resources is insufficient to document or estimate the potential 

maximum internal exposure to members of the class, under plausible circumstances during the period 

of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations at the PPG, 1946 through 1962. There does 

appear to be sufficient information and data, however, to estimate most or all external radiation 

exposures to members of this class.

The 250-workday requirement for PPG workers was subsequently interpreted by DOL in two separate 

bulletins. EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 states (DOL 2006): 

1. This new addition to the SEC affects DOE employees and DOE contractor employees 

or subcontractor employees employed at the PPG from 1946 through 1962 for a number 

of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, either solely under this employment or 

in combination with work days established for other classes of employees included in the 

SEC.... This new SEC designation is established for workers who were “monitored or 

should have been monitored” while employed at the PPG. Using the current standards 

for monitoring of workers at a nuclear facility site, DOL is interpreting “monitored or 

should have been monitored” as including all employees who worked at the PPG during 

the period from 1946 to 1962.... 

Please note that for this new SEC class, the 250 work day calculation includes any time 

spent at any of the islands or atolls that make up the PPG during its SEC time period. 

This includes time spent working or living at the PPG during the SEC time period. In 

addition, employees were evacuated to ships from the PPG prior to nuclear weapons 

tests being performed. Time spent on ships just prior to a nuclear weapons test is 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 9 of 40

counted toward meeting the 250 work day requirement. For any 24-hour period that the 

employee was present (either worked or lived) on the PPG or on ships (evacuated prior 

to a nuclear weapon testing), the CE [Claims Examiner] would credit the employee with 

the equivalent of three (8-hour) work days. If there is evidence the employee was 

present at the PPG or on ships for 24 hours in a day for 83 days, the employee would 

have the equivalent of 250 work days and would meet the 250 work day requirement. 

Since continuous time spent at this site is credited toward the calculation of 250 work 

days, it is important the CE establish any period when the employee was not present at 

the site and exclude these periods from the 250 work day calculation. In determining the 

actual employment period, the CE must have clear and convincing evidence of a 

beginning date (hire) and end date (termination) of employment at the PPG. Where the 

evidence is not clear and convincing or consists only of film badge date(s) without a 

beginning date or end date, the CE must await further policy guidance before proceeding 

with the verification of covered SEC employment at the site. The National Office of 

DEEOIC [Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation] continues 

to explore methods by which confirmation of employment can occur for workers alleging 

employment at the PPG.

EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05, states (DOL 2007): 

1. This bulletin is in addition to the guidance specifically referenced in Item 5 of Bulletin

06-15....

Absent evidence of hire and end dates of employment, the CE may utilize external film 

badge (dosimetry) records to establish covered employment at PPG. As confirmed by 

DEEOIC, employees working at PPG during its SEC period were issued individual film 

badges to monitor for radiation exposure. These individual film badges were generally 

issued for one day, one week or a month depending on potential exposure to the 

individual. Typically, film badge records would include the issue date and the end 

(return) date which can be used to document employment periods at the PPG. 

As noted for this SEC class in Bulletin 06-15, continuous time spent (including working 

or living) at PPG is credited toward the calculation of 250 work days. If the film badge 

records include an issue date and end (return) date within the PPG SEC time period, the 

CE is to credit the employee with the equivalent of three (8-hour) work days for each 

date the employee was badged, inclusive of the issue date and end (return) date. For 

example, an employee with a film badge with the issue date of 3/27/1954 and the end 

(return) date of 3/31/1954 would be credited with 15 (8-hour) work days.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

Between 1946 and 1962, the military and AEC (a DOE predecessor agency) conducted over a 

hundred atmospheric and underwater nuclear weapon tests at sites at the PPG (DOE 2000). In the 

Pacific, 29 atolls and 5 islands spread over 770,000 mi2 with a total land area of about 70 mi2 make up 

the Marshall Islands. Enewetak Atoll, Bikini Atoll, and Johnston Island in the Marshall Islands, and 

Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean are known collectively as the PPG (NIOSH 2005).

Oceanic nuclear testing by the United States consisted mostly of the unconfined detonation of nuclear 

devices in the atmosphere. An operation includes one or more individual tests, typically designed and 

conducted for a common purpose. Table 2-1 summarizes the PPG tests, including test name, date, 

sponsor(s), location, type, purpose, and yield.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 10 of 40

Personnel who worked on the PPG tests were based at various DOE sites and traveled to the test 

location for part or all of an operation. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory (LLNL), Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) were 

the main work locations for most civilian participants during the various operations. However, DOE 

contractors such as Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier (EG&G) and Holmes & Narver (H&N) for 

example, provided civilian participants who usually worked at other locations. The military 

cosponsored some tests with the national laboratories.

Table 2-1. PPG tests.

a,b,c

Operation Crossroads

To determine effects on ships.

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Able 06/30/1946 LANL/DOD Bikini Airdrop Weapons effects 21 kt

Baker 07/24/1946 LANL/DOD Bikini Underwater Weapons effects 21 kt

Operation Sandstone 

AEC scientific tests to proof-test improved design.

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

X-ray 04/14/1948 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 37 kt

Yoke 04/30/1948 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 49 kt

Zebra 05/14/1948 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 18 kt

Operation Greenhouse 

Thermonuclear weapon development and observation of 

physical and biological effects of nuclear weapons.

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Dog 04/07/1951 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 81 kt

Easy 04/20/1951 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 47 kt

George 05/08/1951 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 225 kt

Item 05/24/1951 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 45.5 kt

Operation Ivy 

Thermonuclear weapon development.

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Mike 10/31/1952 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 10.4 Mt

King 11/15/1952 LANL Enewetak Airdrop Weapons related 500 kt

Operation Castle 

To gauge military effects of the explosions (i.e., measure power and efficiency of devices).

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Bravo 02/28/1954 LANL Bikini Surface Weapons related 15 Mt

Romeo 03/26/1954 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 11 Mt

Koon 04/06/1954 LLNL Bikini Surface Weapons related 110 kt

Union 04/25/1954 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 6.9 Mt

Yankee 05/04/1954 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 13.5 Mt

Nectar 05/13/1954 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 1.69 Mt

Operation Wigwamd

To determine lethal distances for nuclear effects vs. submerged submarines; 

one detonation was conducted in 16,000 ft of water.

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Wigwam 05/14/1955 LANL/DOD Pacific Underwater Weapons effects 30 kt
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 11 of 40

Operation Redwing 

High-yield thermonuclear tests to gauge military effects and measure power and efficiency of devices. 

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Lacrosse 05/04/1956 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 40 kt

Cherokee 05/20/1956 LANL Bikini Airdrop Weapons related 3.8 Mt

Zuni 05/27/1956 LLNL Bikini Surface Weapons related 3.5 Mt

Yuma 05/27/1956 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 190 t

Erie 05/30/1956 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 14.9 kt

Seminole 06/06/1956 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 13.7 kt

Flathead 06/11/1956 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 365 kt

Blackfoot 06/11/1956 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 8 kt

Kickapoo 06/13/1956 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 1.49 kt

Osage 06/16/1956 LANL Enewetak Airdrop Weapons related 1.7 kt

Inca 06/21/1956 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 15.2 kt

Dakota 06/25/1956 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 1.1 Mt

Mohawk 07/02/1956 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 360 kt

Apache 07/08/1956 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 1.85 Mt

Navajo 07/10/1956 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 4.5 Mt

Tewa 07/20/1956 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 5 Mt

Huron 07/20/1956 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 250 kt

Hardtack I 

Three parts to test: (1) continued development of nuclear weapons with detonation of experimental devices 

from various AEC laboratories, (2) underwater tests to improve understanding of effects on underwater 

explosions on ships and material, and (3) nuclear weapons in air and ballistic missile defense 

(first high-yield rocket tests). 

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Yucca

(Operation 

Newsreel)

04/28/1958 LANL/DOD Pacific Balloon Weapons effects 1.7 kt

Cactus 05/05/1958 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons effects 18 kt

Fir 05/11/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 1.36 Mt

Butternut 05/11/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 81 kt

Koa 05/12/1958 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 1.37 Mt

Wahoo 05/16/1958 LANL/DOD Enewetak Underwater Weapons related 9 kt

Holly 05/20/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 5.9 kt

Nutmeg 05/21/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 25.1 kt

Yellowwood 05/26/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 330 kt

Magnolia 05/26/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 57 kt

Tobacco 05/30/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 11.6 kt

Sycamore 05/31/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 92 kt

Rose 06/02/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 15 kt

Umbrella 06/08/1958 LANL/DOD Enewetak Underwater Weapons effects 8 kt

Maple 06/10/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 213 kt

Aspen 06/14/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 319 kt

Walnut 06/14/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 1.45 Mt

Linden 06/18/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 11 kt

Redwood 06/27/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 412 kt

Elder 06/27/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 880 kt

Oak 06/28/1959 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 8.9 Mt

Hickory 06/29/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 14 kt

Sequoia 07/01/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 5.2 kt

Cedar 07/02/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 220 kt

Dogwood 07/05/1958 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 397 kt

Poplar 07/12/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 9.3 Mt
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 12 of 40

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Scaevola 07/14/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Safety experiment 0

Pisonia 07/17/1958 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 225 kt

Juniper 07/22/1958 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 65 kt

Olive 07/22/1958 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 202 kt

Pine 07/26/1958 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 2 Mt

Teak

(Operation 

Newsreel)

08/01/1958 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects 3.8 Mt

Quince 08/06/1958 LLNL/DOD Enewetak Surface Weapons related 0

Orange

(Operation 

Newsreel)

08/12/1958 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects 3.8 Mt

Fig 08/18/1958 LLNL/DOD Enewetak Surface Weapons related 20 tons

Argusd 

Tests in upper regions of atmosphere to test Christofilos theory, which argued that high-altitude nuclear 

detonations would create radiation belt in upper regions of Earth’s atmosphere that would include 

degradation of radio and radar transmissions, etc.

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Argus I 08/27/1958 LANL/DOD S. Atlantic Rocket Weapons effects 1–2 kt

Argus II 08/30/1958 LANL/DOD S. Atlantic Rocket Weapons effects 1–2 kt

Argus III 09/06/1958 LANL/DOD S. Atlantic Rocket Weapons effects 1–2 kt

Dominic

Primarily high-altitude air bursts with little fallout. 

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Adobe 04/25/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 190 kt

Aztec 04/27/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 410 kt

Arkansas 05/02/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1.09 Mt

Questa 05/04/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 670 kt

Frigate Bird 05/06/1962 LLNL/DOD Pacific Rocket Weapons related 200–1,000 kt

Yukon 05/08/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 100 kt

Mesilla 05/09/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 100 kt

Muskegon 05/11/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 50 kt

Swordfish 05/11/1962 LANL/DOD Pacific Underwater Weapons effects Low

Encino 05/12/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 500 kt

Swanee 05/14/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 97 kt

Chetco 05/19/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 73 kt

Tanana 05/25/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 2.6 kt

Nambe 05/27/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 43 kt

Alma 06/08/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 782 kt

Truckee 06/09/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 210 kt

Yeso 06/10/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 3 Mt

Harlem 06/12/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1.2 Mt

Rinconada 06/15/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 800 kt

Dulce 06/17/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 52 kt

Petit 06/19/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 2.2 kt

Otowi 06/22/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 81.5 kt

Bighorn 06/27/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 7.65 Mt

Bluestone 06/30/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1.27 Mt
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 13 of 40

Operations Fishbowl and Dominic (a.k.a. Dominic I)

Test Date Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Starfish Prime 

(Operation Fishbowl)

07/09/1962 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects 1.4 Mt

Sunset

(Operation Dominic)

07/10/1962 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1 Mt

Pamlico

(Operation Dominic)

07/11/1962 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 3.88 Mt

Androscoggin

(Operation Dominic)

10/02/1962 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 75 kt

Bumping

(Operation Dominic)

10/06/1962 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 11.3 kt

Chama

(Operation Dominic)

10/18/1962 LANL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 1.59 Mt

Checkmate

(Operation Fishbowl)

10/20/1962 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects Low

Bluegill 3 Prime 

(Operation Fishbowl)

10/26/1962 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects <1 Mt

Calamity

(Operation Dominic)

10/27/1962 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 800 kt

Housatonic

(Operation Dominic)

10/30/1962 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 8.3 Mt

Kingfish

(Operation Fishbowl)

11/01/1962 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects <1 Mt

Tightrope

(Operation Fishbowl)

11/04/1962 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects Low

a. Prepared from Weary et al. (1981), Martin and Rowland (1982), Jones et al. (1982), Gladeck et al. (1982a, 1982b),

Bruce-Henderson et al.1982, Berkhouse et al. (1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984), and DOE (2000).

b. DOD = military cosponsorship.

c. Dates are Greenwich Mean Time rather than local.

d. Operations Wigwam and Argus and their tests are not considered to have occurred as part of PPG operations. These

data should be used to estimate dose only if these oceanic testing locations become recognized as covered DOE

facilities.

3.0 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE

Multiple organizations based at various sites in the DOE complex sponsored and took part in the 

operations. Based on records from DOE, the dose reconstructor must, if possible, determine the 

facility or facilities in the complex with which the employee was associated during participation in an 

oceanic test or operation.

LANL, LLNL, SNL, and NTS provided many of the civilian scientific, research, and support participants 

during these operations. H&N and EG&G provided support personnel (e.g., cafeteria workers, 

electronics technicians, construction workers, etc.). The assignments were for all or part of an 

operation and lasted from 2 to 4 months for most civilian participants. Employees of some 

contractors, such as EG&G and H&N, were associated with more than one DOE facility. The dose 

reconstructor should use the occupational medical dose technical basis documents (TBDs) for the 

participant’s associated DOE and AWE sites to determine X-ray dose.

For most participants, specific guidance for occupational medical dose can be found in the current 

published revision of:

• ORAUT-TKBS-0008-3, Nevada Test Site – Occupational Medical Dose (ORAUT 2012a);

• ORAUT-TKBS-0010-3, Los Alamos National Laboratory – Occupational Medical Dose

(ORAUT 2010c); and
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 14 of 40

• ORAUT-TKBS-0035-3, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational Medical Dose

(ORAUT 2010b).

While these sites provided many participants, other sites across the complex also provided 

participants or workers who might have been hired from the local population as support personnel. 

Other employers might have been associated with only one facility or none at all. If an employee’s 

records cannot be associated with a facility for which a TBD has or is being developed at the time of 

the dose reconstruction, dose reconstructors should use the guidance in ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose 

Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT 2011).

NIOSH has concluded it is feasible to determine maximum potential occupational medical exposures. 

Because most civilian participants spent the interval of the operation (or part of the operation) at the 

test location and then returned to the United States, the use of site-specific information (for example, 

the documents listed above for NTS, LANL, and LLNL) for the participant is reasonable. Occupational 

medical exposures for participants that were hired on location or do not have available X-ray records 

linked to a covered site (e.g., NTS, LANL, and LLNL) should be evaluated in accordance with 

ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays 

Administered Off Site (ORAUT 2017).

Participants who have been linked to a covered site but for whom records are not available fall into 

three categories according to the DOE response (or lack thereof): (1) records are not readily 

available, (2) records do not exist, or (3) no DOE response was provided. In the first and third cases 

where DOE indicated that the records are not readily available (or not retrieved) or no response was 

provided, X-ray procedures should be applied in accordance with the occupational medical TBD for 

that site if a best estimate is not required. If a best estimate is required, the case should be put on 

hold and a request should be sent to the covered site to provide the X-ray records. For the second 

case, in which DOE indicated that the X-ray records do not exist, dose from X-ray procedures should 

not be assigned.

4.0 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE

Participants with the potential for radiological exposure received dosimeters during the tests (see 

Table 6-1). Starting with Operation Castle, PPG adopted LANL film badge dosimetry procedures 

(Lalos 1989). According to ORAUT-TKBS-0010-4, Los Alamos National Laboratory – Occupational 

Environmental Dose (ORAUT 2010a), external onsite ambient dose does not need to be assigned for 

employees who were monitored under LANL procedures. Beginning in 1955 with Operation Wigwam, 

all participants were issued permanent film badges. In addition, some participants were issued 

mission badges in addition to film badges with longer exchange frequencies. For these individuals, 

the mission badge dose was subtracted from the permanent badge dose; the difference became the 

dose of record. Therefore, beginning in 1955, external ambient dose does not need to be applied. 

For PPG operation participants, coworker doses have been developed using summary data (see 

Attachment A). Because of the large uncertainties, coworker doses should be assigned to workers at 

the 95th-percentile level as described in Section 6.0 in lieu of other environmental doses.

The primary source of occupational environmental dose was exposures to fallout. Assignment of 

potential fallout dose is discussed in Section 6.2.

5.0 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE

NIOSH has determined that it lacks sufficient personnel monitoring, air monitoring, or source term 

data to adequately reconstruct the internal exposures at the PPG. Consequently, NIOSH finds that it 

is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses from internal exposures during 

PPG operations (NIOSH 2005). 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 15 of 40

6.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE

A review of the records from DOE and application of the operation-specific parameters in Table 6-1 

will provide a dose estimate for the employee. Before universal badging in 1955, because of 

deficiencies in the film badge dosimetry data and procedural practices that were identified in Film 

Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests (Lalos 1989) and Navy Film Badge Review: 

DOMINIC, Navy Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program (Perkins and Hammond 1980), available 

DOE records might be incomplete, inaccurate, or might not include unmonitored exposures 

associated with employee badging. To account for these large uncertainties, the 95th-percentile 

coworker doses in Attachment A should be assigned for cases in which the data are incomplete or 

nonexistent. If, before 1955, the employee had recorded dose, the dose reconstructor should 

compare that recorded dose with the 95th-percentile doses in Attachment A and assign the larger of 

the two doses. NIOSH considers the available data and these methods adequate for performing 

external photon dose reconstruction for PPG activities.

NIOSH determined that it lacks sufficient information to adequately reconstruct neutron doses at the 

PPG (NIOSH 2005). The following specific guidance is provided for external dose reconstruction:

• Energy distribution. Assume an energy distribution of 100% 30 to 250 keV for photons. This

is very favorable to claimants because it is likely that participants present during the events

were exposed to photons >250 keV. Beta dose was not evaluated from the film dosimeters

used during these operations. For methods to assign beta dose, see Section 6.1.

• Missed dose. Assign missed dose based on the number of exchanges in the dosimetry

records. After 1955, compare the recorded dose plus the missed dose with the 95th-percentile

dose in Attachment A and assign the larger dose. It should be noted that before universal

badging began in 1955, it is not possible to reconstruct missed dose because of deficiencies in

film badge dosimetry data and procedural practices identified by Lalos (1989) and Perkins and

Hammond (1980). During the tests, operation badges were worn for the entire test sequence

or some other established interval of the operation and mission badges were worn for the

duration of a specific task. Because both badges were to be worn at the same time, only one

zero should be assigned.

• Uncertainty and bias. Assign uncertainty to the measured photon dose. As an assignment

that is favorable to claimants, bias has been defaulted to 1.0 for both the missed and

measured doses. According to the information in Lalos (1989), the dose of record was to be

divided by the bias, but it is favorable to claimants to assign as discussed above.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 16 of 40

Table 6-1. External dosimetry using gamma dosimeters, 1946 to 1962.

a,b

Year Operation Dosimeter Description Issue and exchange MPE Biasc Uncertainty MDL

1946 Crossroads

(2 events)

Dental film 

packet

Single component type K doubleemulsion dental film packet 

covered by 0.020-in.-thick lead 

cross filter. This filter was not 

totally effective in correcting overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. Plastic envelope 

was used to minimize damage to 

film from moisture. Exposure range 

0 to 2 R.

Issued to RadSafe 

monitors or a few RadSafe 

monitors in groups 

(approximately 1 to 

2 monitors with dosimeters 

for 100 participants –

cohort badging). Also 

issued to aircrews. 

Exchanged daily but 

record indicates some 

were worn up to 9 d. Used 

during decontamination of 

ships and for unloading 

ammunition at Kwajalein 

after August 1946.

Photon exposure 

with objective of 

keeping daily 

exposure below 

0.1 R, not to 

exceed 50–60 

R/2 wk. Employee 

withdrawn from 

operation at 10 R/d 

or 60 R/2 wk.

1.1 1.7 40 mR

1948 Sandstone

(3 events)

Eastman 

types K and 

A film

Type K exposure range (0.06 to 

2 R). Type A exposure range (1 to 

10 R). Covered by 0.020-in.-thick 

lead cross filter. This filter was not 

totally effective in correcting the 

overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. Plastic envelope 

was used to minimize damage to 

film from moisture.

Issued for single-day use 

to all personnel with 

exposure potential. 

Example: on 04/24/1948, 

9 d after test “X-Ray,” all 

participants who were 

expected to come closer 

than 530 yd of ground zero 

were issued dosimeters.

Exposure to be 

below 0.1 R/d or 

3 R for certain 

missions.

1.1 1.8 60 mR

1951 Greenhouse

(4 events)

DuPont 553 

packet

DuPont 553 packet, including 

Type 502 low-range element (0.05 

to 10 R), type 510 high-range 

element (1 to 50 R), and type 606 

high-range element (10 to 300 R). 

No measurable density above 

background was reported for type 

606 element. Lead filters 0.020 in. 

thick. This filter was not totally 

effective in correcting overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. 

Cohort representative, 

aircrews, and ground 

crews maintaining 

contaminated aircraft. 

Originally recorded dose 

probably reflects 

subtraction for fallout.

3.9 R/13 wk; 

0.1 R/d not to 

exceed 0.7 R/wk.

1.1 1.9 40 mR
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 17 of 40

Year Operation Dosimeter Description Issue and exchange MPE Biasc Uncertainty MDL

1952 Ivy

(2 events)

DuPont 558 

packet

DuPont 558 packet including 

type 508 low-range element (0.05 

to 10 R) and type 1290 high-range 

element (10 to 750 R). Lead filters 

0.020 in. thick. This filter was not 

totally effective in correcting overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. 

Issued to aircrews, ground 

crews assigned to working 

on contaminated aircraft, 

and reentry parties. 

Badges were usually 

issued on mission basis 

and worn for approximately 

1 d.

3.9 R/operation for 

gamma only. 

1.1 1.5d 40 mR

1954 Castle

(6 events)

DuPont 509

packet

DuPont 509 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 606 high-range 

element (10 to 300 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area). This change in thickness 

from previous filter caused 20% 

change in response to 120- and 

70-keV photons.

Issued to all aircrews in air 

at time of detonation within 

185 km of the shot site. 

Also to all participants 

likely to receive a 

significant amount of 

radiation exposure and a 

representative 10% of 

other personnel.

3.9 R/13 wk 

augmented with 

0.3 R/wk after that. 

1.0 2.1 40 mR

1955 Wigwame

(1 event)

DuPont 559 

packet

DuPont 559 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 606 high-range 

element (10 to 300 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area).

Issued to almost all 

participates with extra 

exchanges for those 

involved in posttest 

sampling and recovery of 

test instruments. Badge 

indicated beta-to-gamma 

ratios ranged from 1:1 to 

3:1.

3.5 R/operation; 

20 R/operation 

hands and feet. 

1.0 1.4 40 mR

1956 Redwing

(17 events)

DuPont 559 

packet

DuPont 559 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 606 high-range 

element (10 to 300 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area).

Permanent badges were 

issued to all participants. 

Cellulose acetate holder 

was found to be defective, 

so after first 6 wk film 

packets were dipped in 

ceresin wax to keep out 

moisture. Mission badges 

(exchanged daily) were 

issued to personnel 

entering contaminated 

areas.

3.9 R/13 wk. 1.0 1.5 40 mR
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 18 of 40

Year Operation Dosimeter Description Issue and exchange MPE Biasc Uncertainty MDL

1958 Hardtack 

and 

Newsreel

(35 events)

DuPont 559 

packet

DuPont 559 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 834 high-range

element (5 to 800 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area). Film was wax covered and 

housed in rigid polyvinylchloride 

case. Designed to be worn for 

several months, no significant 

failure observed with up to 6 mo of 

use.

Film badges were called in 

at 60-d intervals. All 

participants were to wear 

dosimetry at all times.

3.75 R/13 wk; 

5 R for operation. 

1.2 1.4 40 mR

1958 Arguse

(3 events)

DuPont 559 

packet

Uncertain which film badge was 

used. Possibly same as Operation 

Plumbbob at NTS [i.e., type 502 

low-range element (0.02 to 10 R) 

and type 606 high-range element 

(10 to 300 R)].

4,000 film badges were 

provided but, due to 

classified nature of tests 

only 264 film badges were 

assigned, all to personnel 

with knowledge of the 

tests. No records of the 

dosimetry are available. 

Highest exposure recorded 

by individual’s packet was 

0.010 R.

3 rem/13 wk and 

5(N – 18)f rem/yr.

g

1.09h 1.4g 40 mR

1962 Dominic 

(Dominic I) 

and 

Fishbowl 

(36 events)

DuPont 556 

packet

DuPont 556 packet including 

type 508 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 834 high-range 

element (5 to 800 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area). Film was wax covered and 

housed in rigid polyvinylchloride 

case.

Aircrews and all 

participants with exception 

of certain remote locations.

3 rem/13 wk and 

5(N – 18)f rem/yr. 

1.2 1.4 40 mR

a. Sources: Weary et al. (1981), Martin and Rowland (1982), Jones et al. (1982), Gladeck et al. (1982a, 1982b), Bruce-Henderson et al. (1982), Berkhouse et al.

(1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984), and Lalos (1989).

b. MDL = minimum detection limit; MPE = maximum permissible exposure.

c. For the purpose of providing an assignment of dose that is favorable to claimants, the bias will default to 1.

d. Bias is 1.4 for flight personnel.

e. Operations Wigwam and Argus are not considered part of the PPG cohort. These data should be used to estimate dose only if these oceanic testing locations are

recognized as covered DOE facility.

f. N equals the age of the participant.

g. Routine MPE is from IEER (2000).

h. Information is from Operation Plumbbob at NTS.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 19 of 40

6.1 UNMONITORED SKIN DOSE BETA-TO-GAMMA RATIOS

Beta dose was not evaluated from the film dosimeters that were used during PPG operations. In the 

absence of shallow dose measurements from beta radiation from fallout, dose reconstructors should 

use the beta-to-gamma ratios in Table 6-2 to derive appropriate ratios to apply for each cancer

location.

Table 6-2. Beta-to-gamma dose ratios for bare skin exposures to mixed fission products at PPG test 

sites at various distances from the source plane.

a

Time after 

detonation 1 cm 20 cm 40 cm 80 cm 100 cm 120 cm 160 cm 200 cm

0.5 hr 36.4 24.2 17.7 11.9 10.4 9.1 7.0 5.4

1 hr 32.5 21.4 15.5 10.3 8.9 7.8 5.9 4.5

2 hr 32.0 20.8 15.0 9.9 8.5 7.4 5.5 4.2

4 hr 40.3 25.9 18.5 12.0 10.3 8.9 6.7 5.0

6 hr 51.1 32.6 23.1 14.9 12.7 11.0 8.2 6.2

12 hr 65.6 41.0 28.6 17.8 15.0 12.8 9.3 6.8

1 d 65.1 38.7 25.8 14.9 12.2 10.0 6.8 4.7

2 d 64.4 35.2 22.1 11.8 9.3 7.4 4.7 2.9

3 d 62.8 32.2 19.3 9.8 7.6 6.0 3.6 2.1

1 wk 62.3 29.0 16.3 7.7 5.8 4.5 2.5 1.4

2 wk 65.5 30.5 17.1 8.1 6.2 4.7 2.7 1.6

1 mo 72.4 34.7 19.9 9.8 7.6 6.0 3.7 2.2

2 mo 85.7 39.8 22.8 11.8 9.5 7.8 5.1 3.3

4 mo 907.0 40.4 23.0 12.5 10.5 9.0 6.4 4.4

6 mo 94.6 42.5 24.5 13.9 11.9 10.4 7.7 5.5

9 mo 116.7 54.5 32.5 19.6 15.4 15.4 11.8 8.8

1 yr 166.1 81.2 50.3 31.7 25.6 25.6 20.1 15.2

2 yr 494.2 251.9 160.5 104.2 85.3 85.3 68.0 52.3

a. Source: Barrs and Weitz (2006).

The factors that determine a ratio that is favorable to the claimant include the time after detonation 

and the distance of the skin cancer location from the source plane. To determine a reasonable 

maximum time after detonation, the frequency of the detonations must be considered as well as the 

elapsed time between separate operations. For example, during some PPG operations, detonations 

occurred on a daily basis while other operations involved weekly or biweekly detonations. Because 

the dose rate for both gamma and beta radiation diminishes exponentially with time after detonation, 

the relative importance of the dose from older fallout is significantly less than the importance of fresh

fallout to total dose. Therefore, the maximum “effective” age of the fallout during PPG operations is 

probably no more than 2 months.

However, the time between operations varied between 1 and 4 years. Therefore, if participants were 

exposed, for example, in the first quarter of 1958 before the start of Operation Hardtack-I, according 

to Tables 6-3 and 6-4, a beta-to-gamma ratio as high as 85 would be expected for exposure to a skin 

cancer on the upper arm because the fallout from the previous operation (Redwing) would have been 

the likely source of the exposure and that fallout would have aged more than 2 years. However, 

empirical studies at NTS (ORAUT 2012b) indicate that, for fallout that has been exposed to 

weathering for more than 6 months (atmospheric testing at the NTS ceased in July of 1962), the 

actual measured beta-to-gamma ratio was much lower. The NTS data showed that, for the period 

from 1966 to 1987, the 50th-percentile beta-to-gamma ratio from 369 data pairs of measured shallow 

and penetration dose was 1.04 and that the 95th-percentile ratio was 4.59, each with a geometric 

standard deviation (GSD) of 2.41. These measurements were performed with badges on the chest 

(i.e., 120 cm from source plane). Therefore, for exposures to fallout that has weathered for less than
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 20 of 40

6 months or more, between different operations, the ratios shown in Table 6-3 for weathered fallout

should be applied.

The shallow doses that were derived using the weathered ratios should be applied as a lognormal 

distribution with a GSD of 2.41.

In relation to the minimum time of exposure to fallout after detonation, inspection of the data in 

Table 6-2 shows a peak effect at 12 hours. Therefore, to derive a beta-to-gamma ratio that is 

favorable to claimants, the largest ratio between 2 months and 12 hours was chosen for each of the 

distances in Table 6-2. These ratios are shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3. Maximum beta-to-gamma ratios between 

12 hours and 2 months after detonation at various 

distances above the source plane. 

Distance above 

source plane (cm)

Maximum beta-to-gamma ratio 

from 12 hours to 2 months

20 41

40 28.6

80 17.8

100 15

120 12.8

160 9.3

200 6.8

Table 6-4. Anatomical distances to source plane and corresponding beta-to-gamma 

ratios. 

Location

Distance from source 

plane (cm)

Beta-to-gamma ratio, 

fresh fallouta

Beta-to-gamma ratio, 

weathered falloutb

Lower leg 25 37 13

Upper leg 69 21 8

Hand 65 22 8

Wrist 84 18 7

Lower arm 97 16 6

Upper arm 125 12 4

Shoulder 142 11 4

Neck 151 10 3

Head 162 9 3

Scalp 173 8 3

a. Calculated doses using these ratios should be entered as constants.

b. Calculated 95th-percentile doses using these ratios should be entered as a lognormal distribution with

a GSD of 2.41.

Table 6-4 provides the approximate distances for various body locations for the average man (5 ft, 

8 in. tall). Using linear interpolation, beta-to-gamma ratios at these distances can be derived and are 

also provided in Table 6-4. Shallow dose derived from application of the fresh fallout beta-to-gamma 

ratios should be applied as a constant.

As an efficiency method when a best estimate is not required, the beta-to-gamma ratios in Table 6-5 

may be used.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 21 of 40

Table 6-5. Efficiency beta-to-gamma ratios for fresh and weathered fallout. 

Location

Beta-to-gamma ratio, 

fresh fallouta

Beta-to-gamma ratio, 

weathered falloutb

Lower leg 40 13

Upper leg/hand/wrist/lower arm/chest 20 8

Upper arm/shoulder/neck/head/scalp 10 3

a. Calculated doses using these ratios should be entered as constants.

b. Calculated 95th-percentile doses using these ratios should be entered as a lognormal distribution with

a GSD of 2.41.

Another consideration in the assignment of beta dose is attenuation. Beta dose should not be 

assigned to locations below the ankles because the workers always wore shoes during the recovery 

and decontamination operations. Further, photographic records indicate these activities often 

involved only short pants and shoes because of the heat and humidity. Therefore, attenuation factors 

should not be applied except for cancer locations from the waist down to just above the knees. For 

cancer locations from the waist to just above the knees, the best-estimate attenuation factor of 0.855 

(ORAUT 2005) should be applied.

6.2 UNMONITORED SKIN DOSE FROM FALLOUT

Exposure to ionizing radiation during atmospheric nuclear testing is the sum of exposures from 

activities that required personnel to undertake missions in radioactive areas, or to deal with 

radioactive materials, and of exposures from increased background radiation in normally 

nonradioactive areas that might be caused, for example, by fallout. All nuclear testing had some 

exposures of the first type, but Operation Greenhouse in 1951 also had fallout exposures. Three 

shots of the series deposited radioactive fallout over the base islands at Enewetak and six nearby 

ships, which exposed personnel to radiation.

Before 1955, film badges were almost exclusively used for personnel on missions that had the 

potential for radiation exposure. Only a portion of the personnel in areas where exposure was not 

expected were badged. Therefore, radiation from the unexpected fallout was unrecorded for the large 

majority of Operation Greenhouse participants. However, fallout radiation was recorded by 

instruments that monitored background radiation on film badges outside of buildings on Parry Island 

as well as by sample badges that were issued to selected personnel working in the affected fallout 

areas. These basic background measurements and sample badges were used by radiation safety

personnel at the time of Operation Greenhouse to estimate the maximum possible exposures from the 

fallout. Estimates were made for personnel on the base islands of Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan as 

well as the support ships (DNA 1983). 

Cumulative radiation exposure data were used to produce a matrix of the estimated doses in rem for 

the entire Operation Greenhouse test period for Parry, Enewetak, and Japtan Islands as shown in 

Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, respectively.

About 70% of the 2,952 U.S. Navy personnel at Operation Greenhouse were badged. These included 

the boat pool personnel who were expected to enter radioactive areas as they ferried scientific parties 

to the shot islands. The air patrol squadron personnel who could have flown in the vicinity of the 

radioactive clouds and air transport personnel who flew radioactive samples to Hawaii and the U.S. 

mainland were also badged.

A search of Navy medical records indicates that 1,609 doses were assigned immediately after the 

tests to nearly all personnel aboard the USS Curtiss (AV-4), USS Sproston (DDE-577), USS Walker

(DDE-517), USS Cabildo (LSD-16), the USS LST-859, and those in the boat pool, for the period they 

were not badged. These doses accounted for fallout exposure. The documentation for these 

calculations has not been found. However, a 1981 scientific reconstruction of the probable fallout 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 22 of 40

exposures for these ships is consistent with the assigned levels (DNA 1983). Assignments for the 

Cabildo and the boat pool appear to have considered individual assignment or work area and the 

number of days not badged because the same assignment was not made for all crewmembers of 

these units.

The fallout exposure to personnel aboard ships should be considerably lower than to land-based 

personnel. Not only were ship structures more effective radiation shields than the light aluminum and 

canvas shelters on the islands, but decontamination of the ships during and after fallout removed 

radiating particles from the ships. 

Unless particles on the islands were covered, leached into the soil, or blown away, they continued to 

retain exposure potential until completely decayed.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 23 of 40

Figure 6-1. Cumulative dose (rem) for personnel on Parry Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout (Example: personnel arriving 

April 26 and departing May 26 received a dose of 0.94 rem) (DNA 1983).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 24 of 

Figure 6-2. Cumulative dose (rem) for personnel on Enewetak Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout (Example: personnel arriving 

40

April 28 and departing May 26 received dose of 0.97 rem) (DNA 1983).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 25 of 

Figure 6

40

-3. Cumulative dose (rem) for personnel on Japtan Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout (Example: personnel arriving 

April 28 and departing May 26 received dose of 0.89 rem) (DNA 1983).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 26 of 40

The assigned fallout exposures in the Navy medical records for personnel who were aboard ships for 

the entire test period are shown in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6. Operation Greenhouse fallout 

exposures for personnel aboard ships for the 

entire test period.

a

Ship Exposure (R)

USS Curtiss (AV-4) 1.043

CTG 3.3 Staff (USS Curtiss) 1.043

USS Cabildo (LSD-16) 0.700–1.100b

USS Sproston (DDE-577) 1.000

USS Walker (DDE-517) 0.433

USS LST-859 0.334

Boat pool 0.700–2.100b

a. For dose reconstruction, 1 R is assumed to be

equivalent to 1 rem.

b. For dose reconstruction, apply the higher value.

6.3 INSTRUCTIONS TO DOSE RECONSTRUCTORS

6.3.1 Penetrating Dose Determination

Before 1955, covered employees who were not badged should be assigned the 95th-percentile doses 

in Attachment A. If the employee had recorded dose, the dose reconstructor should compare that 

recorded dose with the empirical 95th-percentile doses in Attachment A and assign the larger of the 

two. If the covered employee was not at the PPG for the entire period of an operation, the 

95th-percentile dose for that operation should be prorated based on the ratio of the time the covered 

employee was on site during the active operation and the total period for the entire operation. This 

prorated 95th-percentile dose should be compared with the recorded dose for the operation and the 

higher of the two should be assigned. The recorded dose for the operation should not be prorated 

before the comparison with the prorated 95th percentile dose. 

Operations at the PPG were always confined within a calendar year but never lasted for an entire year 

(i.e., 12 months). Operations typically started after the end of February of a given year and ended 

before the end of November of the same year. Some operations lasted only a few months in a given 

year. For purposes of comparing and prorating recorded and 95th-percentile doses, only the dose 

that was recorded during the active months of the operation should be compared with the 

95th-percentile dose. Any dose that was recorded before or after the active operation months should 

be added to the higher of the operations recorded dose, or the 95th-percentile dose.

These doses should be converted to organ doses using exposure (R) dose conversion factors (DCFs) 

and be applied as constants.

6.3.2 Nonpenetrating Dose Determination

Shallow or beta dose is determined for susceptible cancers (e.g., skin, breast, testes, penis, and lips) 

by multiplying the penetrating dose (Section 6.3.1) by the appropriate beta-to-gamma ratio 

(Section 6.1). The use of the efficiency method in Section 6.1 is allowed for cases where a best 

estimate is not required. These doses should be assigned as constants.

6.3.3 Penetrating and Nonpenetrating Doses from Fallout

For cases where occupation on the various islands and ships (for April 8, 1951, through May 14, 

1951) is documented in the dosimetry records and the covered employee stay times are known,
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 27 of 40

additional penetrating dose should be assigned (1) in accordance with Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, or 

(2) in accordance with Table 6-5. The additional dose should be added to the dose as derived in

Section 6.3.1. This new summed penetrating dose should then be multiplied by the appropriate betato-gamma ratio in Section 6.1 to determine the beta dose for susceptible cancers. The derived

penetrating dose should be assigned as a constant. The nonpenetrating dose that was derived from

fresh fallout should be applied as a constant and the nonpenetrating dose that was derived from

weathered fallout should be applied as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 2.41. Nonpenetrating

dose should be evaluated in accordance with the ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Interpretation of Dosimetry

Data for Assignment of Shallow Dose (ORAUT 2005), in relation to organ DCFs and other modifying

factors. Penetrating dose should be evaluated in accordance with OCAS-IG-001, External Dose

Reconstruction Implementation Guideline (NIOSH 2007), in relation to organ DCFs. For penetrating

dose, anterior-posterior geometry, a comparison with rotational geometry for bone surfaces, red bone

marrow, esophagus, and lung should be considered as potentially favorable to the claimant with

isotropic geometry assumed for cases requiring a best estimate. The penetrating dose derived from

Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 should be converted to organ doses using the H*(10) DCFs from NIOSH

(2007) while the penetrating dose derived from Table 6-5 should be converted to organ dose using

the exposure (R) DCFs.

7.0 SUMMARY

This site profile provides guidance for dose reconstruction for non-SEC cancers and those 

presumptive cancer claims that involve less than 250 days (or 83 days if assignment was continuous 

duty) of employment for EEOICPA claimants who worked at the PPG. NIOSH finds that the external 

monitoring records and operational histories available with the methods in this TBD are sufficient to 

complete photon and beta external dose reconstructions for these employees. For participants with 

available X-ray records that are linked to a covered DOE site, dose reconstructors should use existing 

NIOSH TBDs and procedures to estimate possible occupational medical exposures. Occupational 

medical exposures for participants who were hired on location or who do not have available X-ray 

records linked to a covered site (e.g., NTS, LANL, LLNL, etc.) should be evaluated in accordance with 

ORAUT-OTIB-0079 (ORAUT 2017). Coworker doses should be assigned to workers at the 

95th-percentile level as described in Section 6.3.1 in lieu of other environmental or recorded doses. 

NIOSH lacks access to source term data, bioassay data, or internal monitoring data to estimate 

internal doses associated with potential inhalation of radionuclides.

8.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

All information requiring identification was addressed via references integrated into the reference 

section of this document.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 28 of 40

REFERENCES

Barrs, N. M., and R. L. Weitz, 2006, “Reconstruction of External Dose from Beta Radiation Sources of 

Nuclear Weapon Origin,” Health Physics, volume 91, number 4, pp. 379–389. [SRDB Ref ID: 

26776]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, R. A. Miller, F. W. 

McMullan, and M. J. Osborne, 1983a, Operation Dominic I—1962, DNA 6040F, Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., February 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1672]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, R. A. Miller, F. W. 

McMullan, and M. J. Osborne, 1983b, Operation Greenhouse—1951, DNA 6034F, Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., June 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 1658]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, 

M. J. Osborne, and W. E. Rogers, 1983c, Operation Sandstone: 1948, DNA 6033F, Defense

Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., December 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 1655]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, 

and M. J. Osborne, 1984, Operation Crossroads—1946, DNA 6032F, Defense Nuclear 

Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1652]

Bruce-Henderson, S., F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, R. H. Miller, W. E. 

Rogers, R. H. Rowland, C. F. Shelton, P. Sturman, L. Berkhouse, S. Davis, H. DeSantis, P. 

Dean, M. K. Doyle, and D. S. Patterson, 1982, Operation Redwing: 1956, DNA 6037F, 

Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., August 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1664]

DNA (Defense Nuclear Agency), 1983, Operation Greenhouse–1951, DNA 6034F, Washington, D.C., 

June 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 1658]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1990, Twenty-First Annual Report, Radiation Exposures for DOE 

and DOE Contractor Employees - 1988, DOE/EH-0171P, Assistant Secretary for Environment, 

Safety, and Health, Washington, D.C., December. [SRDB Ref ID: 26900]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2000, United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 

1992, DOE/NV--209-REV 15, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, December. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 2433]

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2006, Processing Claims for the Pacific Proving Grounds SEC 

Class, 1946 - 1962, EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15, Washington, D.C., September 27. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 155208]

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2007, Supplemental Guidance for Processing Claims for the Pacific 

Proving Grounds SEC Class, 1946–1962, EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05, Washington, D.C., 

January 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 131050]

Gladeck, F. R., K. G. Gould, J. H. Hallowell, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, R. A. Miller, M. J. Osborne, 

C. F. Shelton, L. Berkhouse, and F. S. Calhoun, 1982a, Operation Hardtack I—1958, DNA

6038F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., December 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1667]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 29 of 40

Gladeck, F. R., J. H. Hallowell, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, R. H. Miller, R. Pozega, W. E. Rogers, 

R. H. Rowland, C. F. Shelton, L. Berkhouse, S. Davis, M. K. Doyle, and C. B. Jones, 1982b, 

Operation Ivy: 1952, DNA 6036F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., December 1. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 1662]

IEER (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research), 2000, Summary of Historical Annual 

Regulatory Dose Limits for the United States, Takoma Park, Maryland, December. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 33222]

Jones, C. B., M. K. Doyle, L. H. Berkhouse, F. S. Calhoun, E. J. Martin, and K. Tempo, 1982, 

Operation Argus 1958, DNA 6039F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., April 30. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 1671]

Lalos, G., editor, 1989, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, National Academy of 

Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [SRDB Ref ID: 1905]

Leavitt, M. O., 2006, HHS Designation of Additional Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Designating a Class 

of Employees from Pacific Proving Grounds, Enewetak Atoll, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., June 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 142698]

Martin, E. J., and R. H. Rowland, 1982, Castle Series, 1954, DNA 6035F, Defense Nuclear Agency, 

Washington, D.C., April 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1661]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2005, SEC Petition Evaluation Report, 

Petition SEC-00020, Rev. 0, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

October 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 26384]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2007, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 3, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 21. [SRDB Ref ID: 38864] 

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010, Radiation Exposures Covered 

for Dose Reconstructions Under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act, DCAS-IG-003, Rev. 1, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 5. [SRDB Ref ID: 88929] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for 

Assignment of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

October 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 19434] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team) 2010a, Los Alamos National Laboratory – 

Occupational Environmental Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0010-4, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

March 6. [SRDB Ref. ID: 19564] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010b, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

– Occupational Medical Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0035-3, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,

August 27. [SRDB Ref ID: 86394]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010c, Los Alamos National Laboratory – 

Occupational Medical Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0010-3, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September 14. [SRDB Ref ID: 87132] 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 30 of 40

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2011, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational 

Medical X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 04, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 20. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 98147] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012a, Nevada Test Site – Occupational Medical 

Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0008-3, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 

120674] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012b, Nevada Test Site – Occupational External 

Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0008-6, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 9. [SRDB Ref ID: 

120250] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2015, External Dose Coworker Methodology, 

ORAUT-RPRT-0071, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 2. [SRDB Ref ID: 145135] 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2017, Guidance on Assigning Occupational 

X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 02,

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 166967]

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2018, “Support Files for ORAUT-TKBS-0052 

Rev. 02 - Summary Site Profile for the Pacific Proving Ground Coworker External Dose,” Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, May 25. [SRDB Ref ID: 172141] 

Perkins, W.W., and R. R. Hammond, 1980, Navy Film Badge Review: DOMINIC, Navy Nuclear Test 

Personnel Review Program, NOSC TR 583, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego,

California, May 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 156605] 

Weary, S. E., W. J. Ozeroff, J. L. Sperling, B. Collins, C. W. Lowery, and S. K. Obermiller, 1981, 

Operation Wigwam (Series Volume), DNA 6000F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, 

D.C., September 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1586]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 31 of 40

GLOSSARY

beta radiation

Charged particle emitted from some radioactive elements with a mass equal to 1/1,837 that of 

a proton. A negatively charged beta particle is identical to an electron. A positively charged 

beta particle is a positron.

dose

In general, the specific amount of energy from ionizing radiation that is absorbed per unit of 

mass. Effective and equivalent doses are in units of rem or sievert; other types of dose are in 

units of roentgens, rad, rep, or grays.

dosimeter

Device that measures the quantity of received radiation, usually a holder with radiationabsorbing filters and radiation-sensitive inserts packaged to provide a record of absorbed dose 

received by an individual. See film dosimeter. 

exposure

(1) In general, the act of being exposed to ionizing radiation. See acute exposure and chronic

exposure. (2) Measure of the ionization produced by X- and gamma-ray photons in air in units

of roentgens.

film dosimeter

Package of film for measurement of ionizing radiation exposure for personnel monitoring 

purposes. A film dosimeter can contain two or three films of different sensitivities, and it can 

contain one or more filters that shield parts of the film from certain types of radiation. When 

developed, the film has an image caused by radiation measurable with an optical 

densitometer. Also called film badge.

neutron

Basic nucleic particle that is electrically neutral with mass slightly greater than that of a proton. 

There are neutrons in the nuclei of every atom heavier than normal hydrogen. 

nonpenetrating dose

Dose from beta and lower energy photon (X-ray and gamma) radiation that does not penetrate 

the skin. It is often determined from the open window dose minus the shielded window dose. 

See dose. 

penetrating dose

Dose from moderate to higher energy photons and neutrons that penetrates the outer layers of 

the skin. See dose. 

radiation

Subatomic particles and electromagnetic rays (photons) with kinetic energy that interact with 

matter through various mechanisms that involve energy transfer. 

radioactive

Of, caused by, or exhibiting radioactivity. 

radioactivity

Property possessed by some elements (e.g., uranium) or isotopes (e.g., 14C) of spontaneously 

emitting energetic particles (electrons or alpha particles) by the disintegration of their atomic 

nuclei. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 32 of 40

radiograph

Static images produced on radiographic film by gamma rays or X-rays after passing through 

matter. In the context of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000, radiographs are X-ray images of the various parts of the body used to screen for 

disease.

rem

Traditional unit of radiation dose equivalent that indicates the biological damage caused by 

radiation equivalent to that caused by 1 rad of high-penetration X-rays multiplied by a quality 

factor. The sievert is the International System unit; 1 rem equals 0.01 sievert. The word 

derives from roentgen equivalent in man; rem is also the plural.

roentgen (R)

Unit of photon (gamma or X-ray) exposure for which the resultant ionization liberates a positive 

or negative charge equal to 2.58 × 10-4 coulombs per kilogram (or 1 electrostatic unit of 

electricity per cubic centimeter) of dry air at 0 degrees Celsius and standard atmospheric 

pressure. An exposure of 1 roentgen is approximately equivalent to an absorbed dose of 

1 rad in soft tissue for higher energy photons (generally greater than 100 kiloelectron-volts).

shallow dose equivalent

Dose equivalent in units of rem or sievert at a depth of 0.07 millimeters (7 milligrams per 

square centimeter) in tissue equal to the sum of the penetrating and nonpenetrating doses.

skin dose

See shallow dose equivalent. 

uncertainty

Standard deviation of the mean of a set of measurements. The standard error reduces to the 

standard deviation of the measurement when there is only one determination. See accuracy, 

confidence interval or level, and error. Also called standard error.

X-ray

(1) See X-ray radiation. (2) See radiograph.

X-ray radiation

Electromagnetic radiation (photons) produced by bombardment of atoms by accelerated 

particles. X-rays are produced by various mechanisms including bremsstrahlung and electron 

shell transitions within atoms (characteristic X-rays). Once formed, there is no difference 

between X-rays and gamma rays, but gamma photons originate inside the nucleus of an atom.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 33 of 40

ATTACHMENT A 

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Summary of external coworker dose analysis using ORAUT-RPRT-0071 methodology

vs. Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) data ............................................................................... 35

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-1 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Crossroads ................................................... 35

A-2 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Sandstone..................................................... 36

A-3 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Ivy, 1952 to 1953 .......................................... 36

A-4 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Castle ........................................................... 37

A-5 External coworker dose analysis, 1955 .................................................................................. 37

A-6 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Redwing........................................................ 38

A-7 External coworker dose analysis, 1957 .................................................................................. 38

A-8 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Hardtack-I ..................................................... 39

A-9 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Greenhouse .................................................. 39

A-10 External coworker dose analysis for Operation Dominic-I ....................................................... 40
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 34 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Revision 01 of this site profile used range-tabulated data tables to determine 95th-percentile values 

for use with external dose assignment for energy employees. This revised attachment describes the 

analysis of the actual individual dosimetry records (hardcopy reports were entered into an electronic 

format) from PPG operations. The following assumptions and approaches were used:

1. About 57,000 dose data entries were completed. Where possible, data for individuals

associated with the military were excluded by the data entry staff.

2. About 2,500 data entries were duplicates and were removed from the analysis.

3. About 5,800 blank entries were not converted to zero or considered in the analysis.

4. Values between zero and the censoring limit (~40 mrem) were imputed using the methods

from ORAUT-RPRT-0071, External Dose Coworker Methodology (ORAUT 2015).

5. In some instances – especially for data associated with Operation Castle – the sum of

individual dosimeter values for an employee was greater than the summary dose for that

employee. In those cases, the greater value from the summation process was used as the

dose for the operation.

The values for each operation (or periods between operations) were analyzed separately. The results 

are summarized in Table A-1 and shown for each operation and time period in Figures A-1 through 

A-10. In each figure, the number of individuals analyzed is given, along with the empirical

95th-percentile dose value and a 95th-percentile value derived from a lognormal fit of the data. The

parameters defining the lognormal fit are given in each figure.

Not all datasets were good fits to a lognormal distribution. It is likely that the data (especially as seen 

with Operations Castle, Redwing, Hardtack-I, and Greenhouse) follow a hybrid lognormal distribution. 

In these instances, exposures follow (1) a lognormal component in the lower range where the effect of 

dose limits is less pronounced and (2) a normal distribution in the higher range where the effects of a 

dose limit is strong (DOE 1990). This is illustrated in the figures for these operations where the plot of 

the actual data is lower than the fitted lognormal plot. Because a lognormal fit is not appropriate for 

these datasets, the empirical 95th-percentile value for a given operational period should be used for 

coworker data comparison. The datasets and R code used in this coworker analysis are available in 

ORAUT (2018).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 35 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Table A-1. Summary of external coworker dose analysis using ORAUT-RPRT-0071 methodology vs. 

Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) data. 

Operation Year

Number 

of 

results

Empirical 

95th 

percentile

(rem)

Lognormal 

derived 95th 

percentile 

(rem)

DNA

number of 

results

DNA 

95th percentile 

(rem)

Crossroads 1946 6,059 0.347 0.337 10,431 0.365

Sandstone 1948 262 1.710 1.450 119 2.348

Ivy 1952–1953 1,512 1.680 1.709 367 1.238

Castle 1954 2,273 4.890 6.760 2,175 2.117

Period 55 1955 1,480 1.470 1.653 Not applicable Not applicable

Redwing 1956 996 6.076 9.194 3,847 3.969

Period 57 1957 1,356 0.495 0.515 Not applicable Not applicable

Hardtack-I 1958 7,320 3.794 11.160 5,067 1.707

Greenhouse 1961 3,524 6.230 13.400 551 1.813

Dominic-I 1962 3,130 0.289 0.365 4,620 0.558

Figure A-1. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Crossroads. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 36 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Figure A-2. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Sandstone. 

Figure A-3. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Ivy, 1952 to 1953. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 37 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Figure A-4. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Castle. 

Figure A-5. External coworker dose analysis, 1955.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 38 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Figure A-6. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Redwing. 

Figure A-7. External coworker dose analysis, 1957. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 39 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Figure A-8. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Hardtack-I. 

Figure A-9. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Greenhouse. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 02 Effective Date: 07/23/2018 Page 40 of 40

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER EXTERNAL DOSE (continued)

Figure A-10. External coworker dose analysis for 

Operation Dominic-I.